First time I ever recall Rush apoligizing. I agree calling her names didn't help but the MSM has succeeded in deflecting the whole idea that this grown woman expects subsidized Birth control. Now 'this' too is suddenly a 'right' and suddenly this is being used to turn women against the Repub party.

Why does a Catholic school 'have' to pay for her BCP? And I agree that this woman had no problem getting in front of Congress with millions of viewers on international TV to discuss her sex life.

He lost some advertisers over this and key R's were distancing themselves from his comment. He didn't take back the meaning of it. He apologized for the 'insulting word choices'.

Rush Limbaugh"What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says she must be paid to have sex?" Limbaugh asked. "What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

---One company, Carbonite, a data backup service, said feedback from customers led to the decision to remove advertising from Limbaugh's show. The company's CEO said Limbaugh's apology Saturday wasn't enough to put his company's ads back on the air.

"No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady," Carbonite CEO David Friend said. "Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse."

He lost some advertisers over this and key R's were distancing themselves from his comment. He didn't take back the meaning of it. He apologized for the 'insulting word choices'.

Rush Limbaugh"What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says she must be paid to have sex?" Limbaugh asked. "What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

---One company, Carbonite, a data backup service, said feedback from customers led to the decision to remove advertising from Limbaugh's show. The company's CEO said Limbaugh's apology Saturday wasn't enough to put his company's ads back on the air.

"No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady," Carbonite CEO David Friend said. "Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse."

Why is this women's rights? Isn't there a man involved if contraception is needed? Make him pay to have sex. Oops, that would be pr..........!-------------"...several advertisers are pulling ads"

An acquaintance runs one of those companies who 'suspended' their advertising. He is/was liberal (from my perspective) before this episode just as Rush was conservative and controversial before this. They advertise to both sides and the middle because that is exactly who uses their product. They buy enough time to get celebs of all leanings to personally endorse them. Having to pull the advertising is a setback for the investment they made over a couple of decades building a business position in that market. It will appease others but those few with loud voices will not double their purchases nor would that make up the difference if they could.

Interesting would be to know the actual number of complaints that came from actual Rush listeners, rather than detractors. Roughly zero. With the apology in place and the scandal fading, the Rush show will still be numero uno on the radio. They will have to either jump back in to the outrage of these protestors or watch a competitor take that spot. We will see and I will try to follow up.

Rush's words were vulgar and degrading and the big companies had to respond once the crisis was manufactured, but this is not the Tiger Woods scandal, no one got hit with a golf club, nor is it the biggest threat his show has faced. It is more a sign of how an energized, small group can make something happen quickly.-------Rush was trying to make a point of humor that money for sex has some analogy to prostitution. The slut comment was a misstep. We don't know that but could guess she does not have long term, meaningful relationships with men. Whoops scratch that - there go our advertisers.

Past President of Georgetown Students for Reproductive Justice, she sounds so sweet until she gets going with her demands for justice. Then she is more like the welfare lady of a video that went by a couple of months ago.

Is this a right, an entitlement, something congress cannot deny and that must be provided by someone else for free?! Not just free, but EASY to come by?! This is a law school. Which constitution are they studying?

She says she should not have to pay a whole summer's salary for her sexual freedom, you should, when the rest of her year is consumed by her studying at taxpayer expense to derail our form of government.

I recall that Georgetown medical scholl was the MOST expensive in the country at one time.

I don't know about law school but both GW and Georgetown were at least in the past the two most expensive medical schools in the US. I think it had something to do with not being technically in a state but in the District of Columiba.

Yet this liberal/radical activist who is going to probably one of the most expensive law schools in the country refuses to pay a 100 or two for her BCPs.

Surely this ain't about money.

I am waiting to hear Gloria Allred respond to Hoyer's call for a slander lawsuit against Rush.

In her case it probably is more about the money than political though both are factors (obviously) for her.

I wonder if they will be forced to apologize - and whether the apology will be sincere enough?

Very funny and telling that a right to bear arms never included an obligation for someone else to pay for it - if you even have a right to bear arms at Georgetown University.--------

There is something about the concept of insurance the activists don't understand. You insure against expenses uncertain or unforeseen, the regular bills you simply pay. She is saying the fact women need this is a certainty, not a risk. For expenses that directly come with life's activities that you choose, like skis for skiers and boxing gloves for boxers, don't you just pay those bills, or do you expect someone else to coercively pay them for you?

With the apology in hand, some advertisers left, some are allegedly asking to come back while the show is announcing new advertisers. Mostly the ad agencies buy contracts with the local affiliates and then due to an organized campaign from social media have to say don't run our ads during your highest rated show. That leaves a gap for new purchases.

There seems to be quite a question emerging now after all the silence about the similar and worse comments that have come out of the left. Most embarrassing is Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a "c*nt" and giving $1 million to the Obama PAC to advance the political cause of Obama and his wife and daughters.

Here is what for female Dem lawmakers had to say about the liberal misogynists (nothing):

Sarah Palin wrote Tuesday on her Facebook page: "Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone's daughter, why doesn't his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist?"

I have decided to take as a personal insult directed to me anything said about Sandra Fluke. I also think birth control should be covered by insurance carriers. I think it is a health issue and would reduce insurance and government spending. I suppose there are thoughtful arguments against that position but this it what I feel I have been reading.

"What does it say about Rachel ... essentially says she must be paid to have sex?" Limbaugh asked. "What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex." "

"Should we buy Rachel swim goggles to protect her eyes from dangerous ejaculate as well? "

"What if Rachel is entertaining more than one gentleman caller at a time? As a taxpayer, I think it's important that our money meet every possible need that Rachel might encounter......"

http://www.jessicascott.net/blog/2012/03/i-am-not-a-slut/I Am Not A Slutby Jessica Scott I took a brief hiatus from twitter/facebook over the last weekend because the rhetoric was getting my blood pressure up and well, to spare the people around me endless rants about the stupidity in our national dialogue, I had to turn it off.

The rhetoric has gotten out of control. The extreme rhetoric that says a woman should just put an aspirin between her knees to keep from getting pregnant, or that proposes a bill in the Senate allowing employers to decide not to cover medical issues they deem immoral or the fact that a group of middle aged men have returned to an era where they get to tell me what to do with my body: I’m a little pissed.

I am a 35 year old married mother of 2, an Army officer who has deployed and I use birth control to be a good soldier and a responsible parent.

I use birth control to stop having my period so that I can go to the field and not worry about it.

I use birth control while deployed with my husband to keep from getting pregnant and getting sent home and letting down all the men AND women on my team.

I use birth control to keep from having more children than we can afford.

I happen to sell health insurance among other insurances so I make money when the insurance companies make money. Truthfully it is a small part of business but I appreciate that part of my paycheck. Birth Control not being covered is a religious issues it would be cheaper for all of us if it was required to be covered. Paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for a birth. I'm missing the part where you personally insulted Sarah Palin and Laura Ingram. I have never posted anything by Bill Mahr or Ed Schultz and I think their actions were wrong. Speaking of double standard. I have never heard you complaining about Viagra being covered. It is certainly your choice to believe me or not but I really felt personally insulted by your words. Please feel free to have the last word.

I'm not quite sure I follow the logic of why Bill Maher's money should be returned, but the silence on his "cunt" and "dumb twat" commentaries on Sarah Palin is deafening.

To recap, at a White House press conference Tuesday, Obama said that Limbaugh’s verbal attacks on Fluke disturbed him as a father. He added that the reason he telephoned the Georgetown University law student to see if she was doing OK was because the incident brought his own young daughters, Sasha and Malia, to mind.

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way,” said Obama.

Actually I , at least (if no one else), posted on this board that I don't think viagra, cialis or levitra should be covered.

As for BCP I would leave it to the insurance plan to decide if they want to include it.

If the Catholic Church is paying for the health insurance and they choose not to cover it under their sponsored plan then that person can always apply for a plan that does.

I do't get the logic than it is cheaper to pay for BCP than birth. As for the cost issue it was this grown woman Fluke who brought that up when she stated it would cost her 3 thousand a year. If we are THAT far from any personal responsibilty in this country than we are all screwed - No pun intended. So the logic is we may have well pay for BCP because if not the woman (30yo) will have unprotected sex and thus may get pregnant and it will cost "society" more. Folks were screwed if this is now the majority's thinking.

In any case the real issue is as OReilly says, *freedom*. The freedom for the Church to offer a plan of their choosing.

If this is where we are that woman are going to cast presidential votes on whether these meds are covered or not by LAW then it is too late. They state Obama's poll ratings among women are growing.

The idea that a 30 yo woman is "testifying" before congress because she want her BCP paid for by her school helath insurance is astounding enough. Then to have a sitting United States President call her up to defend her from some names is unbearable. It is unbearable the left has sunk us this low that that is an "issue" that is shoved into the forefront with as always the complicit MSM.

If this is something that hurts Republicans than all I can say is this country is beyond help.

WE are dead broke, health costs by far are the biggest threat to our nation and we can't even agree on not paying for BCP?

As an aside I don't know why insurance plans are paying for viagra drugs either. People can/should pay out of pocket. My health costs are enough. I don't need to pay more for these either.

Remember when it was determined by one health group the mammograms between 40 and 50 do more harm than good.

Then we get barraged with woman's "rights" group, all leftist liberals (almost all Deomcrat party types).

I didn't see the same outrage when med orgs are saying we should stop doing routine PSA tests.

I don't accept the name calling. Repeating what was already apologized for didn't exactly move the civility forward judging the first response. ----------------------------

This is NOT a question about what the insured and your insurance company agree to include in a private contract. Why would we care about that? Fluke was in front of Congress on the issue of what the government will force everyone to pay for. It isn't "birth control should be covered by insurance carriers", but what government will mandate. If it reduces healthcare costs, why does it need to be an act of Congress?

Besides Catholics, abstainers, masterbaters and oral sex enthusiasts, gays should be another demographic wondering why they must pay the expenses of women who selectively engage in non-reproductive, heterosexual copulation - without condoms. All must pay for the activities of some. I missed the part where this stuff quit being PRIVATE!

Fluke describes this as a necessity. What other living expenses must be paid by other than the procurer? Which expenses are our own; where is that line? There isn't one anymore. At least it is admitted that: "I suppose there are thoughtful arguments against that position". Thank you for that.

Why don't you see the disrespect for other people's religions and principles that we are attempting to codify? Do you see it but figure it is not against your own religion? An attack against one faith is not an attack against all?

I think you know the man apologized. That was in the thread while you still quote him and voice the outrage. Over at one of the other big religions (a different C-word), unbeknownst to the President and Dem opportunists, they preach forgiveness.----------------Back to Fluke, once again liberals have to lie to make a point?

At the low end that is $480 for 3 years of continuous coverage. At Fluke's exaggerated figure with a government 15.5 trillion in debt, maybe we need to look at lower cost alternatives, now that private activity and its consequences are everyone's business. The point about viagra is equally valid, and sex changes and a lot of other things.

We hand all this power to government over religion and privacy without fully contemplating what the next elected government will do with it. That is my opinion.

There is no line of separation between Maher and Pres. Obama, tied together by a million dollars given and accepted and other mutual cooperations. If they draw a line now it is only from being caught up publicly in this hypocrisy.

Birth Control not being covered is a religious issues it would be cheaper for all of us if it was required to be covered.

It's not the role of government to take my money at gunpoint to subsidize someone else's sexual behavior. If Sandra Fluke wants to gangbang the Georgetown football team, good for her, don't confiscate my money to facilitate that. If she were to contract a STD/STI, again, it's her problem, not mine. Just as you are free to keep kosher and I'm free to eat bacon cheeseburgers, I don't want or need you to pay for my local pork farm. Freedom of choice includes personal responsibility. "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" leaves out the part how the bicycling fish needs a huge paternalistic govenment to confiscate money from men to create the aquarium the fish cannot survive without.

Paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for a birth.

So? Again, that's not the role of government. Mass sterilization is even cheaper, as advocated by feminist/eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

I have never posted anything by Bill Mahr or Ed Schultz and I think their actions were wrong.

Ah, were you as outraged by Maher and Schultz as you are about Limbaugh or my comments about Fluke? Why the selective outrage? Are you going to write angry letters to HBO and MSNBC? Are you going to demand Obama's SuperPAC return Maher's 1 million dollar donation?

Birth Control not being covered is a religious issues it would be cheaper for all of us if it was required to be covered.

It's not the role of government to take my money at gunpoint to subsidize someone else's sexual behavior. If Sandra Fluke wants to gangbang the Georgetown football team, good for her, don't confiscate my money to facilitate that. If she were to contract a STD/STI, again, it's her problem, not mine. Just as you are free to keep kosher and I'm free to eat bacon cheeseburgers, I don't want or need you to pay for my local pork farm. Freedom of choice includes personal responsibility.

--------I'm confused here. No one is taking your money at gunpoint; actually no one is even taking your money. If you do the actuarial numbers, it is cost effective to offer birth control; it's just good plan design like lots of preventative benefits. Pregnancy is expensive and if there are complications, the cost goes up astronomically. A lot of benefits are legally mandated. However, you don't have to take birth control; it's still your choice, so what's with the privacy issue? As to personal choice and lifestyle, following your logic, if you don't want to pay for her STD, why should she pay for your heart attack from your bacon cheeseburgers?

Birth Control not being covered is a religious issues it would be cheaper for all of us if it was required to be covered.

It's not the role of government to take my money at gunpoint to subsidize someone else's sexual behavior. If Sandra Fluke wants to gangbang the Georgetown football team, good for her, don't confiscate my money to facilitate that. If she were to contract a STD/STI, again, it's her problem, not mine. Just as you are free to keep kosher and I'm free to eat bacon cheeseburgers, I don't want or need you to pay for my local pork farm. Freedom of choice includes personal responsibility.

--------I'm confused here. No one is taking your money at gunpoint; actually no one is even taking your money. If you do the actuarial numbers, it is cost effective to offer birth control; it's just good plan design like lots of preventative benefits. Pregnancy is expensive and if there are complications, the cost goes up astronomically. A lot of benefits are legally mandated. However, you don't have to take birth control; it's still your choice, so what's with the privacy issue? As to personal choice and lifestyle, following your logic, if you don't want to pay for her STD, why should she pay for your heart attack from your bacon cheeseburgers?

In a free market, the insurance companies consult their actuarial tables to decide what to charge me and I'm free to choose among them. Much like my auto insurance, health insurance should be for catastrophic incidents. My auto insurance doesn't cover regular maintanance, why should health insurance?

For more than two decades, state legislators have regularly debated and enacted "mandates" or required health coverage for specific treatments, benefits, including pregnancy, providers and categories of dependents.It's a mandated part of plan design that you cannot get around unless you are self insured. Even then there are problems.

As for your auto insurance not covering "regular maintenance", you better read it again; it doesn't cover ANY maintenance. You are talking apples and oranges. An interesting analogy might be warranties. They used to cover very little, now BMW and others offer a 5 year warranty covering almost everything including windshield wipers. Better and better warranties are becoming the norm.

Plus, the plan the offered birth control would probably be cheaper than the plan than didn't; again pregnancy costs a lot more. So with your freedom of choice, using your logic, would you buy the more expensive plan? Or go for the cheaper plan, but just ignore the birth control benefit? Of course you go for the cheaper plan if it offers the same benefits that are important to you.

Really here, we are talking group plans. YOU don't get to choose plan design; your employer/union does. Your employer is trying to save money, but still offer their employees a nice benefit. So how would you feel if your employee said that they would not cover STD's and anyone who ate bacon cheeseburgers and/or was overweight? Frankly, the cheeseburger/fat guy is worse since he knows it bad for you and still eats it, plus heart attacks are expensive. As for STD, unless your partner tells you, you don't know.

As for your auto insurance not covering "regular maintenance", you better read it again; it doesn't cover ANY maintenance. You are talking apples and oranges. An interesting analogy might be warranties. They used to cover very little, now BMW and others offer a 5 year warranty covering almost everything including windshield wipers. Better and better warranties are becoming the norm.

Is that the result of government mandates or the free market?

YOU don't get to choose plan design; your employer/union does.

Depends on the employer. In my experience, you usually have different plans to choose from with different levels of coverage.

Warranties; it's the result of free market AND government mandates. But again, medical is different; it's not a luxury; a car is a luxury. You can always walk or take the bus if you can't afford one, but what are yougoing to do if you have a heart attack, cancer, etc.---Actually, no. The employer ONLY get's to choose the plan or plans. He may offer 2 plans, i.e. a PPO and and HMO. Or if it is a large employer, he may offer more plans. Each plan was designed by the employer to offer benefits commensurate with the cost.

For example, a plan that does not cover STD's OR people overweight would cost a lot less than a plan that did. An HMO plan might cover everything including the kitchen sink, but you don't get to choose your doctor or hospital. A PPO plan that covers almost everything and you choose to whom and where to go would cost a LOT of money. So yes, the employer could offer you the choice of these three, but the employer so to speak is the dealer - he calls the game. You just get to play the cards dealt to you.

I'm not sure why people focus on birth control. It's a minor cost item, frankly it saves money for the employer, i.e. in theory less get pregnant. Also, there are a lot of mandated benefits that cost a lot more.So who cares.... If you don't want to use the benefit, don't. Make babies. Have fun. But if you don't want babies now, then take birth control. You will be happy and so will your employer.

"I'm not sure why people focus on birth control. It's a minor cost item, frankly it saves money for the employer, i.e. in theory less get pregnant. Also, there are a lot of mandated benefits that cost a lot more.So who cares.... If you don't want to use the benefit, don't. Make babies. Have fun. But if you don't want babies now, then take birth control. You will be happy and so will your employer."

JDN,

I think you get this but....

The left is focusing on BC because some of them or most of them,or apparently most women (?) feel it should be a MANDATED RIGHT for insurance companies to have to pay for this.

The left is doing under the banner of womens "health".

For the Church it is not a cost issue. It is a to the Church a moral issue.

I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.

We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.

At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation’s Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughters and all women that they shouldn’t be “attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.” After inserting himself into the fray and dragging Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he “didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating” language and civility. Too late, pal.

The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.

If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.

Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”

It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”

It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore’s Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was “a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does” and who called me a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House.

Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a “black trophy” and “Aunt Jemima.”)

Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a “talk slut” for criticizing Obama’s petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be “hate-f**ked.” The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a “highly f**kable Filipina” and “a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, ‘Do me!’”

And then there’s the left’s war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish.

A reporter asked Obama to comment on examples of liberal hate speech at Tuesday’s press conference. He whiffed, of course. This is, after all, the brave leader who sat on his hands while his street thugs attacked tea party mothers and grandmothers as “Koch whores” during the fight over union reform in Wisconsin. (As I reported last week, his re-election campaign is now targeting the Koch brothers’ private foundation donors in a parallel effort to chill conservative speech and activism.) He’s leading by example.

So no, we won’t get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence.

"his re-election campaign is now targeting the Koch brothers’ private foundation donors in a parallel effort to chill conservative speech and activism"

Not to mention the hysteria of some libs on MSM outlets recently about the *unfairness* of a system where Sheldon Adleson can give millions to the Newt campaign (making HIM a target) yet narry a peep when it is big entertainment stars/Soros and wall street libs supporting Obama.

Yes. The elephant in the room. I hope there aren't any religious-Americans still hung up on that old 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' commandment.

The writing from Michelle Malkin is powerful. How did all that happen without the notice of the feminists? Or did I miss the outrage? Then we had the Obama million dollar contributor calling Palin a "cunt" and Obama's phony 'Pastor' calling our country "God Damn America". Then we get the lecture when one conservative pundit calls one liberal activist a slut when he meant prostitute as a bad joke and quickly apologized.

Yes I have quoted Rush L a few times on his political insights and I disapprove of that message and a few others of his. I also disapprove that liberals made a book calling him a big, fat liar into a best seller with their exuberance and put the author of that trash in the Senate. I do however get the joke that he fumbled, that she was publicly demanding money to have sex and there is a bad word that should have never been spoken for people who do that. I think the proper word or analogy for the activity was extortion, not prostitution. Once she got going in the video I posted, the message was clear: Pay me, pay us, or we will make your life a living hell. We will publicly call all of you out as women haters, with your obnoxious religions and worn-out principles and see that you never hold political power of any kind ever again if you won't pay us for whatever we decide that we need.

Well as per Rachel's post it is very clear many women identify with Fluke exactly. I do not mean this with tregards to the names (slut etc.). I mean in terms of her position that women ARE entitled to BCP from insureres, and that denying them this is a war on women, a war on women's health, and it is some sexist issue.

The war really is on religion, freedom, separation of religion and state. It the left using this avenue along with every conceivable avenue possible to push bigger controlling government upon us, make more of us dependent, class warfare, redistribution of wealth, slowly devolving the United States soveriegnty, (we need permission from the international community to do anything in Syria -which I admit the first Bush guy started), making us into some sort of socialist gov controlled 1984 state.

I don't know if Rachel is looking at this bigger picture or not or just wants the BCP paid for (based on a "health", "cost", "sexist" issue).

Bottom line it IS that easy to bribe segments of the population. Here I will champion your BCP so vote for me. Someone else - not you SHOULD pay for it.

I will champion gay marriage gay adoption so vote for me.

I will champion illegals can stay here and be pardoned (it is coming folks - in the second term) so vote for me.

I will tax the rich so vote for me. 50% already pay no Fed income tax.

Folks this country is broke, we done.

Rachel you don't have to answer. Your business is yours. This is NOT directed to you personally only that your post is reflective of an attitude in this country that in my opinion is part of the problem.

"I'm not sure why people focus on birth control. It's a minor cost item, frankly it saves money for the employer, i.e. in theory less get pregnant. Also, there are a lot of mandated benefits that cost a lot more.So who cares.... If you don't want to use the benefit, don't. Make babies. Have fun. But if you don't want babies now, then take birth control. You will be happy and so will your employer."

JDN,

I think you get this but....

The left is focusing on BC because some of them or most of them,or apparently most women (?) feel it should be a MANDATED RIGHT for insurance companies to have to pay for this.

The left is doing under the banner of womens "health".

For the Church it is not a cost issue. It is a to the Church a moral issue.

CCP; I get this but....

There are a LOT of mandated benefits. Mandated health benefits have social, financial and medical implications for patients, providers and health benefits plans. Most if not all stateshave mandated benefits. Frankly, even after being an employee benefit consultant for many years I couldn't figure out why some of them were included. But if a large group (women in this example)seem to want a benefit to be included, it will be. Pregnancy for example was once excluded; it's now a mandated benefit. What's the big deal about BC? Further, BC IS cost effective.Everyone wins. And it is under the banner of women's health because well, it benefits women health.

As for the Church, I find that a bogus argument. Adventists don't believe in blood transfusions, but I assure you if I am taken to an Adventist Hospital (there are quite a few in Southern Californiaincluding a Medical School) I will be given blood. A mandated benefit means it has to be offered. If you are a devote Catholic, don't take the pill if you are opposed. But if I am working on staff(I am not Catholic) and my wife wants to take the pill, well why not? Nobody is forcing anyone to take the pill. It's just being offered to the employees and dependents; only if YOU want to take the pill do youneed to. So what's the fuss? No is forcing anyone at the Catholic Hospital/School to participate.

As for Maher, while I am not defending his comments, there is a difference between swearing as a stand up comic (He was on his comedy show) (If we criticized all comics who swear we wouldn't have verymany comics) and on a political talk radio show that supposedly is representing the truth... You all quote Rush on this Forum. Or is Rush just suppose to be funny and I can ignore what he is saying? Also, there is a difference between attacking a politician, someone clearly in the public eye, and attacking a innocent law school student. No one had heard of her until Rush.Further, Rush kept going and going. It wasn't just one word.

That said, Maher blurs the line between his comedy and political commentary. And I don't think it's appropriate outside of perhaps pure comedy to say things like that about another, especially a women,in public.

JDN brings up a relevant subject, which is the matter of mandates in general and describes the generic dynamics accurately. IMHO we need to put and keep this on the radar screen and not be limited to the religious freedom argument.

"Also, there is a difference between attacking a politician, someone clearly in the public eye, and attacking a innocent law school student. No one had heard of her until Rush. Further, Rush kept going and going. It wasn't just one word."

Sorry, not buying this. Fluke is quite the progressive activist. She was testifying in front of Congress!!! How is this not in the public eye?!? Furthermore she's milking this for all she can.

JDN: The left and the pravdas are showing tremendous hypocrisy on this issue. Agree or disagree? AND they are trying to use it to silence the opposition. Agree or disagree?==============================

The Foundation"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George WashingtonGovernment & PoliticsContraception Deception Is No Fluke

Democrats should be on the defensive over the ObamaCare contraception mandate but have instead made the entire issue a circus. They're employing their best smoke and mirrors to distract from the fundamental issue at stake -- whether Barack Obama has the constitutional authority to override religious liberty to achieve his desired insurance coverage -- but they won't get away with it.As we noted last week, one Sandra Fluke testified before Congress on the need to have free birth control provided for all women at Georgetown University. Fluke is no typical college student, however. She's a 30-year-old self-professed "reproductive rights activist" who is pursuing her law degree, though she chose the Jesuit school for the express purpose of changing its policy on insuring contraception. Birth control is contrary to the religious doctrine of the Catholic Church, of which Jesuits are a part.Simply put, Fluke wants them to abandon their principles in order to accommodate her and her fellow female students' recreational choices. The Left then cloaks this in the language of "rights" when no one on the Right is talking about taking rights away from anyone.So how did Fluke gain a hearing before Congress? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called a hearing on the constitutionality of the Obama mandate. Democrats first wanted Americans United for Separation of Church and State executive director Barry Lynn to testify. Lynn is a typical anti-religious leftist, but at least he has some measure of "expertise" on the matter of Obama's interference with the church.However, in a last-minute effort to misdirect the issue to "women's health," Democrats asked that Fluke appear. The committee had not vetted her, and Issa denied the request. Undeterred, Democrats held a subcommittee hearing, called their media accomplices for ample coverage, and allowed Fluke to testify about the plight of young women at Georgetown who supposedly can't afford their own birth control (despite its availability at the local pharmacy for $9 a month) and demand that the university buy it for them. She has no expertise on the subject of Obama's mandate, and her testimony was completely irrelevant hearsay.Then, while discussing the topic last week, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" and elaborated on what that meant in terms not fit for a family show. Clearly, he crossed the line with his language, and he issued two apologies -- apologies that also happened to serve to rehash his (quite valid) argument. Fluke dismissed those apologies, and we won't belabor the point; enough has been said on the subject and Limbaugh is perfectly capable of defending himself. (See, for example, here and here.)Naturally, the Left went into overdrive to misdirect the issue again, this time to Limbaugh's comments instead of Obama's tyranny. They even hung Limbaugh's comments around the necks of Republicans -- as if they are responsible for him when no such similar standard ever exists for leftist talkingheads -- big mouths like Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann, whose own vulgar comments about women have heretofore been given a free pass. Predictably, Obama piled on with a politically opportunistic call to Fluke to "see if she was all right," and to further denounce Limbaugh and his fellow defenders of liberty.It's critical to remember that the real issue is Obama's determination to deny religious liberty in the name of "women's health." Democrats realize that if the issue is framed properly, they lose. Their only hope is to distract and deceive by making the issue about women's access to birth control, or whether Rush is a misogynist or whatever other sideshow they can contrive.Democrats claim that they want reproductive choices left between a woman and her doctor, but it is they who demand government control over health care in general, and, more specifically, authority to force employers and others to pay for certain "health" benefits regardless of the cost. Democrats claim that they love individual rights and liberties, but it is they who deny them for the sake of their pet causes. ObamaCare is designed to destroy liberty, and we mustn't let the Left's Big Top Circus distract from the mission to repeal it.